SteveOifer
~ TOP SUPREME POWER POSTER~
Registered: 06/01/06
Posts: 23,443
|
|
Posted 09/09/12
|
Reply with quote
#1
|
|
VS
Although the type presented on the lower photo is one of the AMMA (American Mastiff) we still see similar pure bred Mastiff types in the ring today.
In other circles, these two distinct types would without doubt be considered different breeds, but in Mastiffs, it is accepted practice.
They are both validated by subjective interpretations of the standard and the latest health movement & revised standard, would justify the lighter weight type over the more robust versions.
Clearly a line must be drawn to distinguish a universal conception of uniformity. Until that time, we will continue to see different breeds all called Mastiff in the Mastiff ring!
__________________
For the betterment of the breed!
"Above all, a uniform type should be aimed at by breeders and uniformity of type can only exist in a proportionate ratio in the purity and distinctiveness in any breed"!.........M. Moore
"If breeds did not adhere to a specific shape, form, and colour range, or if breeders disregarded this blueprint, the breed would degenerate to the point that it would hardly resemble the breed at all. Selective breeding does not just create breeds- it preserves them as well. Breeding purebred dogs inherently means accepting limitations on your freedom to just breed anything"...Catherine McMillan
" A reinforced consolidation of the American and British standards could be the basis for restoring our breed to the gladiatorial glory of its ancient past, in capability if not in usage".....Norman Howard Carp-Gordon
"I can live with doubt, or not knowing, rather than to have answers that might be wrong"...Richard Feynman
TEST YOUR DOGS!
|
|
Loading...
|
|
erikam
Registered: 01/21/12
Posts: 1,477
|
|
Posted 09/09/12
|
Reply with quote
#2
|
|
Extremes. So extreme one is not even a mastiff LOL. You could do this with anything - select for the extreme outer edges, especially if you include non-likes. Most mastiffs in the show ring are appropriately around a median, not on the fringes (and certainly not AmMas)
__________________
http://www.kyniska.com
|
|
Loading...
|
|
LindaGreesonRice
Board Owner
Registered: 05/06/06
Posts: 7,172
|
|
Posted 09/09/12
|
Reply with quote
#3
|
|
|
Neither dog is correct. One is overdone, one in underdone -- we aim for being cooked just right!
__________________
Linda Greeson Rice
AKC Breeder of Merit
The Mastiff Sweet Spot
http://www.bluequaker.com/Mastiffs.htm
We do not breed often, but we do our best to breed top quality mastiffs
with excellent pedigrees to back them up. All breedings are carefully planned to produce
the very best mastiffs, sound in both body and mind, beautiful and strong,
representing the true mastiff standard.
We fully test our dogs. We believe that a person that "just wants a pet" has a right
to own a beautiful, well bred dog that is sound and healthy
every bit as much as someone wanting a "show dog".
|
|
Loading...
|
|
Dixie
** Power Poster **
and
FORUM DONOR!!
Registered: 06/08/06
Posts: 5,391
|
|
Posted 09/09/12
|
Reply with quote
#4
|
|
This thread brings up a question for me. At the specialty on the East Coast, some members from the West Coast commented on how different our dogs
are to the East Coast dogs. I was never told what the differences were. I
am curious as to what the differences were that were noted by attendees.
Anyone know?
__________________
Dixie
|
|
Loading...
|
|
SteveOifer
~ TOP SUPREME POWER POSTER~
Registered: 06/01/06
Posts: 23,443
|
|
Posted 09/09/12
|
Reply with quote
#5
|
|
There are many aficionados that would consider the first Mastiff a great representative of the breed. I'm not making value judgements here!
I'm simply pointing out a trend that is developing, by those who advocate the lighter weight athletic type, as the ideal form for a working Mastiff.
What is correct is subjective and without any ubiquitous guide to solidify opinion, we are truly flying by the seat of our pants.
What breeder A strives for can be 180 degrees from breeder B's interpretation of correct.
East coast Mastiffs vs West coast Mastiffs, are no longer as well defined as before frozen was invented. Today there are pockets of regional types, but not as diverse as in earlier times. Our modern methods have infused the world with interchanging genetics and we see similar forms that pop up in every country due to similar genetics at work. There are still going to be more isolated regions, which will develop certain types more readily than areas with access to more genetic influence, but for the most part, global variability is on the rise.
__________________
For the betterment of the breed!
"Above all, a uniform type should be aimed at by breeders and uniformity of type can only exist in a proportionate ratio in the purity and distinctiveness in any breed"!.........M. Moore
"If breeds did not adhere to a specific shape, form, and colour range, or if breeders disregarded this blueprint, the breed would degenerate to the point that it would hardly resemble the breed at all. Selective breeding does not just create breeds- it preserves them as well. Breeding purebred dogs inherently means accepting limitations on your freedom to just breed anything"...Catherine McMillan
" A reinforced consolidation of the American and British standards could be the basis for restoring our breed to the gladiatorial glory of its ancient past, in capability if not in usage".....Norman Howard Carp-Gordon
"I can live with doubt, or not knowing, rather than to have answers that might be wrong"...Richard Feynman
TEST YOUR DOGS!
|
|
Loading...
|
|
DaveOwen
Registered: 01/19/12
Posts: 260
|
|
Posted 09/09/12
|
Reply with quote
#6
|
|
I've said this on another thread Quote: Originally Posted by DaveOwen seems ‘type’ is a point of view, Has it even been defined past the standard
being a relative newbie, the standard seems subjective.. I would love opinions on what 'type' is.
__________________
People say Mastiffs are stubborn, I say ‘they actively question the validity of what we want‘
http://www.kingmanmastiffs.com/
|
|
Loading...
|
|
fairwinds
~ POWER POSTER ~
Registered: 08/26/10
Posts: 1,443
|
|
Posted 09/09/12
|
Reply with quote
#7
|
|
I think it is ALL subjective. For example, eyes should be brown, the darker the better. Well, my idea of dark brown and yours could be totally different. Type is extremely hard, in my opinion, to have a hard and fast answer. Arabian halter horses must present type. Well, my typey Arab may or may not be what another person prefers and believes is typey.
What isn't subjective, imo, is shoulder angles/rear angles esp. when a specific degree is named as being what one should strive for. In horses, pasterns should mimic shoulders in regards to angles. So, I believe there are some things that one can say, yes it's on or no it's not. But, type, I find it hard to believe that there will ever be a time when everyone agrees what a good type is.
Dawn
|
|
Loading...
|
|
SteveOifer
~ TOP SUPREME POWER POSTER~
Registered: 06/01/06
Posts: 23,443
|
|
Posted 09/09/12
|
Reply with quote
#8
|
|
Type defined is........A taxonomic group, especially a genus or species, chosen as the representative example in characterizing the larger taxonomic group to which it belongs.
The standard is supposed to illustrate in words, the representation of the ideal type.
Unfortunately, it is limited and worded in a way, which opens itself up to subjective interpretation.
Coupled to personal tastes within the fancy (e.g. wrinkle, movement, size preferences, mass vs height, cosmetics, head types, etc.) we further depart from a unified type, which should in fact represent one definitive breed.
Some have tried to interpret & illustrate the ideal, based on a picture being worth 10,000 words, yet we still can't come to a consensus and attack this issue head on.
It's become a political issue, with breeders and AKC/MCOA participants who refuse to organize any effort to inhibit the continued proliferation of variability in this breed.
Therefore, we are left to historically witness the comings & goings of types, which forever seem to be in transit, without any final destination!
__________________
For the betterment of the breed!
"Above all, a uniform type should be aimed at by breeders and uniformity of type can only exist in a proportionate ratio in the purity and distinctiveness in any breed"!.........M. Moore
"If breeds did not adhere to a specific shape, form, and colour range, or if breeders disregarded this blueprint, the breed would degenerate to the point that it would hardly resemble the breed at all. Selective breeding does not just create breeds- it preserves them as well. Breeding purebred dogs inherently means accepting limitations on your freedom to just breed anything"...Catherine McMillan
" A reinforced consolidation of the American and British standards could be the basis for restoring our breed to the gladiatorial glory of its ancient past, in capability if not in usage".....Norman Howard Carp-Gordon
"I can live with doubt, or not knowing, rather than to have answers that might be wrong"...Richard Feynman
TEST YOUR DOGS!
|
|
Loading...
|
|
fairwinds
~ POWER POSTER ~
Registered: 08/26/10
Posts: 1,443
|
|
Posted 09/09/12
|
Reply with quote
#9
|
|
With Arabians, we have breeders who are "head hunters." They couldn't care less what the rest of the body looks like as long as it's got an exotic head. Some breeders don't look beyond "black." Black is a fairly rare color compared to other colors and there are those that are "black" breeders.
All of this hurts the breed. When one goes to a show, one is paying for the judge's opinion. If judge A believe all Mastiffs should have a lot of wrinkle and pins those particular type of dogs, then people will start breeding for more wrinkle. It doesn't mean Judge A is correct. People lose sight of what they believe to be the best and start breeding for fads. It's a shame but it's reality. People love those ribbons and trophies and will produce whatever is winning at that time.
Dawn
|
|
Loading...
|
|
Dozersmom
Registered: 01/03/12
Posts: 369
|
|
Posted 09/09/12
|
Reply with quote
#10
|
|
Sorry, but " the over done" look is what was popular inI the 70'd."funny how things have changed
__________________
Sue Havelka
|
|
Loading...
|
|
LindaGreesonRice
Board Owner
Registered: 05/06/06
Posts: 7,172
|
|
Posted 09/09/12
|
Reply with quote
#11
|
|
That's probably because they mostly looked "underdone" in the 60tys! hahaha
__________________
Linda Greeson Rice
AKC Breeder of Merit
The Mastiff Sweet Spot
http://www.bluequaker.com/Mastiffs.htm
We do not breed often, but we do our best to breed top quality mastiffs
with excellent pedigrees to back them up. All breedings are carefully planned to produce
the very best mastiffs, sound in both body and mind, beautiful and strong,
representing the true mastiff standard.
We fully test our dogs. We believe that a person that "just wants a pet" has a right
to own a beautiful, well bred dog that is sound and healthy
every bit as much as someone wanting a "show dog".
|
|
Loading...
|
|
DaveOwen
Registered: 01/19/12
Posts: 260
|
|
Posted 09/09/12
|
Reply with quote
#12
|
|
Quote: Originally Posted by SteveOifer
Type defined is........A taxonomic group, especially a genus or species, chosen as the representative example in characterizing the larger taxonomic group to which it belongs.
I’m not trying to be argumentative, but that has me a bit confused, taxonomy roughly relating to naming, or binomial nomenclature, past species in plants there are varieties, and cultivars, so in dogs they would be breeds, so to define type as representative of species is hard to follow as pugs are in the same species as mastiffs??
__________________
People say Mastiffs are stubborn, I say ‘they actively question the validity of what we want‘
http://www.kingmanmastiffs.com/
|
|
Loading...
|
|
SteveOifer
~ TOP SUPREME POWER POSTER~
Registered: 06/01/06
Posts: 23,443
|
|
Posted 09/10/12
|
Reply with quote
#13
|
|
Quote: type (t p)n.1. A number of people or things having in common traits or characteristics that distinguish them as a group or class. 2. The general character or structure held in common by a number of people or things considered as a group or class. 3. A person or thing having the features of a group or class. 4. An example or a model having the ideal features of a group or class; an embodiment: "He was the perfect type of a military dandy" (Joyce Cary). 5. A person regarded as exemplifying a particular profession, rank, or social group: a group of executive types; a restaurant frequented by tourist types. 6. A figure, representation, or symbol of something to come, such as an event in the Old Testament that foreshadows another in the New Testament. 7. a. A taxonomic group, especially a genus or species, chosen as the representative example in characterizing the larger taxonomic group to which it belongs.
Take your pick......but you get the idea.
__________________
For the betterment of the breed!
"Above all, a uniform type should be aimed at by breeders and uniformity of type can only exist in a proportionate ratio in the purity and distinctiveness in any breed"!.........M. Moore
"If breeds did not adhere to a specific shape, form, and colour range, or if breeders disregarded this blueprint, the breed would degenerate to the point that it would hardly resemble the breed at all. Selective breeding does not just create breeds- it preserves them as well. Breeding purebred dogs inherently means accepting limitations on your freedom to just breed anything"...Catherine McMillan
" A reinforced consolidation of the American and British standards could be the basis for restoring our breed to the gladiatorial glory of its ancient past, in capability if not in usage".....Norman Howard Carp-Gordon
"I can live with doubt, or not knowing, rather than to have answers that might be wrong"...Richard Feynman
TEST YOUR DOGS!
|
|
Loading...
|
|
SteveOifer
~ TOP SUPREME POWER POSTER~
Registered: 06/01/06
Posts: 23,443
|
|
Posted 09/10/12
|
Reply with quote
#14
|
|
In dog breeds type can mean different things to different people.
To some, it may be a way of expressing a nice looking dog ( e.g. "he is very typey" )
It's used to show that a particular dog conforms to the standard, in the mind of the one stating the expression.
At times, it can be erroneously said about an overdone Mastiff, since it's appearance may cause a reaction in the viewer. If a dog is overdone, it may ooze certain elements that are desirable in lesser quantities and become overtly obvious, due to an excessive quantity of a good thing.
Often, a well balanced, all around good dog, may just look mediocre and not be labeled typey, since it does not have any rewarding feature to make it more outstanding.
__________________
For the betterment of the breed!
"Above all, a uniform type should be aimed at by breeders and uniformity of type can only exist in a proportionate ratio in the purity and distinctiveness in any breed"!.........M. Moore
"If breeds did not adhere to a specific shape, form, and colour range, or if breeders disregarded this blueprint, the breed would degenerate to the point that it would hardly resemble the breed at all. Selective breeding does not just create breeds- it preserves them as well. Breeding purebred dogs inherently means accepting limitations on your freedom to just breed anything"...Catherine McMillan
" A reinforced consolidation of the American and British standards could be the basis for restoring our breed to the gladiatorial glory of its ancient past, in capability if not in usage".....Norman Howard Carp-Gordon
"I can live with doubt, or not knowing, rather than to have answers that might be wrong"...Richard Feynman
TEST YOUR DOGS!
|
|
Loading...
|
|
DaveOwen
Registered: 01/19/12
Posts: 260
|
|
Posted 09/10/12
|
Reply with quote
#15
|
|
Quote: Originally Posted by SteveOiferQuote: type (tp)n.1. A number of people or things having in common traits or characteristics that distinguish them as a group or class. 2. The general character or structure held in common by a number of people or things considered as a group or class. Take your pick......but you get the idea.
if we get to pick our definition I go with 1 or 2
but basicly you are saying we can't define 'type' definitivly?
__________________
People say Mastiffs are stubborn, I say ‘they actively question the validity of what we want‘
http://www.kingmanmastiffs.com/
|
|
Loading...
|
|
erikam
Registered: 01/21/12
Posts: 1,477
|
|
Posted 09/10/12
|
Reply with quote
#16
|
|
the akc defines type as Quote: Type Sum of qualities that distinguish dogs of one breed (breed type) or dogs from one kennel (kennel type) from others.
Because a standard is a written description of a living animal, and an attempt to describe the ideal form of that animal, there is variation with in every breed, and there are many forms that can meet aspects of the standard. There is no standard that does not contain or require subjective thought. Generally "type" is used to describe a set of features that serve to emphasize or de-emphasize aspects of the standard, or describe physcial traits that interpret the standard in a particular way - example "I like that type of head, with small ear and wide part eyes" vs "i like that type of head with lots of depth and soft expression". Both may be correct to the standard, but they are differnt. This is what irritates those who would have a measure and mark for every aspect, and thrills those who have a deep aesthtic for a particular aspect - within the standard there is VARIABLITY and there will alsways be VARIABILITY and guess what...VARIABILITY is not a bad thing, it allows that guy to breed the dog he loves TO THE STANDARD and it allows that guy to breed the dog he loves TO THE STANDARD. Which is "better" ? That is an aesthetic judgement.
__________________
http://www.kyniska.com
|
|
Loading...
|
|
Grant
Registered: 10/03/10
Posts: 849
|
|
Posted 09/10/12
|
Reply with quote
#17
|
|
Breeders can breed what type they like, but it is the judges that decide what type matches the standard !
__________________
Grant
|
|
Loading...
|
|
erikam
Registered: 01/21/12
Posts: 1,477
|
|
Posted 09/10/12
|
Reply with quote
#18
|
|
Quote: Breeders can breed what type they like, but it is the judges that decide what type matches the standard !
No. Judges decide what dogs meet the standard. You can have dogs of different type that both are correct. Judges however are allowed to have aesthetic judgements (that is ironic BTW) so they may favor different types among the dogs that are correct.
__________________
http://www.kyniska.com
|
|
Loading...
|
|
SteveOifer
~ TOP SUPREME POWER POSTER~
Registered: 06/01/06
Posts: 23,443
|
|
Posted 09/10/12
|
Reply with quote
#19
|
|
Quote: but basicly you are saying we can't define 'type' definitivly?
That is correct, since we can't define all parts of the standard definitively.
Erika is correct, in that variability will always exist, but the key is in reducing variability as best we can and that cannot be accomplished with standards that enable variability to flourish.
Type can be better defined, lest we see the two types as illustrated above permeating the breed going forward as it has in the past!
__________________
For the betterment of the breed!
"Above all, a uniform type should be aimed at by breeders and uniformity of type can only exist in a proportionate ratio in the purity and distinctiveness in any breed"!.........M. Moore
"If breeds did not adhere to a specific shape, form, and colour range, or if breeders disregarded this blueprint, the breed would degenerate to the point that it would hardly resemble the breed at all. Selective breeding does not just create breeds- it preserves them as well. Breeding purebred dogs inherently means accepting limitations on your freedom to just breed anything"...Catherine McMillan
" A reinforced consolidation of the American and British standards could be the basis for restoring our breed to the gladiatorial glory of its ancient past, in capability if not in usage".....Norman Howard Carp-Gordon
"I can live with doubt, or not knowing, rather than to have answers that might be wrong"...Richard Feynman
TEST YOUR DOGS!
|
|
Loading...
|
|
SteveOifer
~ TOP SUPREME POWER POSTER~
Registered: 06/01/06
Posts: 23,443
|
|
Posted 09/10/12
|
Reply with quote
#20
|
|
The greater the divergence in type, the greater the separation between breeds.
We cannot have one breed, with several types offering great variability between them and then maintain they are all representing the same breed
__________________
For the betterment of the breed!
"Above all, a uniform type should be aimed at by breeders and uniformity of type can only exist in a proportionate ratio in the purity and distinctiveness in any breed"!.........M. Moore
"If breeds did not adhere to a specific shape, form, and colour range, or if breeders disregarded this blueprint, the breed would degenerate to the point that it would hardly resemble the breed at all. Selective breeding does not just create breeds- it preserves them as well. Breeding purebred dogs inherently means accepting limitations on your freedom to just breed anything"...Catherine McMillan
" A reinforced consolidation of the American and British standards could be the basis for restoring our breed to the gladiatorial glory of its ancient past, in capability if not in usage".....Norman Howard Carp-Gordon
"I can live with doubt, or not knowing, rather than to have answers that might be wrong"...Richard Feynman
TEST YOUR DOGS!
|
|
Loading...
|
|
erikam
Registered: 01/21/12
Posts: 1,477
|
|
Posted 09/10/12
|
Reply with quote
#21
|
|
|
Quote: We cannot have one breed, with several types offering great variability between them and then maintain they are all representing the same breed
The facts prove otherwise Steve.
__________________
http://www.kyniska.com
|
|
Loading...
|
|
erikam
Registered: 01/21/12
Posts: 1,477
|
|
Posted 09/10/12
|
Reply with quote
#22
|
|
Quote: but the key is in reducing variability as best we can and that cannot be accomplished with standards that enable variability to flourish.
Disagree. Why must variability - so long as it is within the standard - be reduced ? Is it not a GOOD THING for a breeder who feels they are lacking X to be able to go to line that is very very strong in X and bring it into their program ? Why would anyone think that is a BAD thing ? Sure there are some extremes, there are extremes in everything. But the two pictures you put up create a false argument. Most WELL BRED MASTIFFS are NOT on the fringes or the extreme. One should be wary of presenting a false dichotomy and then providing the "solution", as a false dichotomy is..above all else..FALSE.
Quote: Type can be better defined, lest we see the two types as illustrated above permeating the breed going forward as it has in the past!
They are not illustrative of anything. One is not even a mastiff.
__________________
http://www.kyniska.com
|
|
Loading...
|
|
SteveOifer
~ TOP SUPREME POWER POSTER~
Registered: 06/01/06
Posts: 23,443
|
|
Posted 09/10/12
|
Reply with quote
#23
|
|
The delusion proves otherwise!
The emperor has no clothes!
__________________
For the betterment of the breed!
"Above all, a uniform type should be aimed at by breeders and uniformity of type can only exist in a proportionate ratio in the purity and distinctiveness in any breed"!.........M. Moore
"If breeds did not adhere to a specific shape, form, and colour range, or if breeders disregarded this blueprint, the breed would degenerate to the point that it would hardly resemble the breed at all. Selective breeding does not just create breeds- it preserves them as well. Breeding purebred dogs inherently means accepting limitations on your freedom to just breed anything"...Catherine McMillan
" A reinforced consolidation of the American and British standards could be the basis for restoring our breed to the gladiatorial glory of its ancient past, in capability if not in usage".....Norman Howard Carp-Gordon
"I can live with doubt, or not knowing, rather than to have answers that might be wrong"...Richard Feynman
TEST YOUR DOGS!
|
|
Loading...
|
|
Grant
Registered: 10/03/10
Posts: 849
|
|
Posted 09/10/12
|
Reply with quote
#24
|
|
Quote: Originally Posted by erikamQuote: Breeders can breed what type they like, but it is the judges that decide what type matches the standard !
No. Judges decide what dogs meet the standard. You can have dogs of different type that both are correct. Judges however are allowed to have aesthetic judgements (that is ironic BTW) so they may favor different types among the dogs that are correct.
Sorry for typing match, instead of meet, but i don't see the difference of what i'm saying to what you are !!
I never said that Judges are picking from correct types or wrong types, but whatever types, the judges are the ones that have the last say, and are the ones to blame for the variety of types, by not interpreting the standard from the same page.
Hence different areas, having different types, because the group of judges for one area are having meetings, and agreeing on what the best dog's in there area are, then the dogs of that type become champs, then are bred around, forming more of the type these particular judges prefer as a group !!
Maybe less judges, traveling further would sort the diversity !!
__________________
Grant
|
|
Loading...
|
|
WalnutCrest
Registered: 07/10/09
Posts: 750
|
|
Posted 09/10/12
|
Reply with quote
#25
|
|
Similarly, as I've heard from judges directly, the most difficult class/show to judge is a large entry which is mediocre in quality.
Sometimes, judges can only make choices from a less-than-stellar list of options. And, the reasons behind them not withholding ribbons has been well discussed...
__________________
http://www.WalnutCrestMastiffs.com
resources for rescue ==> http://www.englishmastiffrescue.net/
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." -- Aristotle
"The most fundamental form of human stupidity is forgetting what we were trying to do in the first place." - Friedrich Nietzsche
|
|
Loading...
|
|
erikam
Registered: 01/21/12
Posts: 1,477
|
|
Posted 09/10/12
|
Reply with quote
#26
|
|
Quote: Sorry for typing match, instead of meet, but i don't see the difference of what i'm saying to what you are !!
I will try and clarify - you can have two dogs that both are correct, both meet/match/conform to the standard but are different types. Example from another breed - you can have a very "elegant" wolfhound, that embodies a sight hound. You can have a robust, well boned sight hound that embodies a wolf-killer. Both may be correct based on the standard, not too extreme, but very different TYPES. I agree Grant that regional differences may make someone favor one type over another. If both dogs are in many ways equal, and they are in the ring together, then I would guess a judge would use aesthetic preferences, trends in the breed, familiarity with the handler (that's a joke LOL) to decide between them. But BOTH are correct, they just are different TYPES. That is different from a judge who believes only a specific TYPE to be correct - that is what some people WANT when they talk about "tightening" up the standard, they want to only have mastiffs that look like THIS type, never like THAT type. When we can see a great mastiff even if it is not the TYPE we are used to, we own, we breed, well then we are becoming true aficionados.
__________________
http://www.kyniska.com
|
|
Loading...
|
|
erikam
Registered: 01/21/12
Posts: 1,477
|
|
Posted 09/10/12
|
Reply with quote
#27
|
|
Look at the dogs on the thread "most favorite mastiffs from the past and why" and tell me we should not be delighted with the different types we have !!!
__________________
http://www.kyniska.com
|
|
Loading...
|
|
SteveOifer
~ TOP SUPREME POWER POSTER~
Registered: 06/01/06
Posts: 23,443
|
|
Posted 09/10/12
|
Reply with quote
#28
|
|
Subjective tastes, no matter how pleasing to the observer, has no basis in objectification of breed standards.
Once a type is agreed upon, the judge & breeder must strive toward that singular ideal, not the multiplicity of ideals!
The enabling of different types within one breed, is a direct result and ramification, derived from the ignorance of understanding true breed type!
It is a false proof in using impressive photos of variable breed types, in order to validate an erroneous premise.
Stability of type should not even be debated at this juncture in Mastiff history. Debating how to arrive at stability, should be the discussion toward that end!
Personal tastes must be left at the door, otherwise, we become so blinded by the image we subjectively love, we then forget that the breed is not supposed to look like Saints, Danes, or Bloodhounds!
__________________
For the betterment of the breed!
"Above all, a uniform type should be aimed at by breeders and uniformity of type can only exist in a proportionate ratio in the purity and distinctiveness in any breed"!.........M. Moore
"If breeds did not adhere to a specific shape, form, and colour range, or if breeders disregarded this blueprint, the breed would degenerate to the point that it would hardly resemble the breed at all. Selective breeding does not just create breeds- it preserves them as well. Breeding purebred dogs inherently means accepting limitations on your freedom to just breed anything"...Catherine McMillan
" A reinforced consolidation of the American and British standards could be the basis for restoring our breed to the gladiatorial glory of its ancient past, in capability if not in usage".....Norman Howard Carp-Gordon
"I can live with doubt, or not knowing, rather than to have answers that might be wrong"...Richard Feynman
TEST YOUR DOGS!
|
|
Loading...
|
|
erikam
Registered: 01/21/12
Posts: 1,477
|
|
Posted 09/10/12
|
Reply with quote
#29
|
|
We've been this round before, so i will leave this to others for whom it is intended after one comment....
Quote: Subjective tastes, no matter how pleasing to the observer, has no basis in objectification of breed standards.
Quote: Once a type is agreed upon, the judge & breeder must strive toward that singular ideal, not the multiplicity of ideals!
Shows a fundamental misunderstanding of what type is.
Quote: The enabling of different types within one breed, is a direct result and ramification, derived from the ignorance of understanding true breed type!
Bollocks. True Fox News headline. Saying it is so does not make it so !
Quote: It is a false proof in using impressive photos of variable breed types, in order to validate an erroneous premise.
Indeed. And who is it that has posted photos of variable types in order to validate an erroneous premise ? Goodness, didn't even use a mastiff !!
Quote: Stability of type should not even be debated at this juncture in Mastiff history. Debating how to arrive at stability, should be the discussion toward that end!
You tossed up the debate, and now decry that there is one ! LOL. There is no debate about "stability of type".
Quote: Personal tastes must be left at the door, otherwise, we become so blinded by the image we subjectively love, we then forget that the breed is not supposed to look like Saints, Danes, or Bloodhounds!
Personal tastes do not equate to mastiffs looking like other breeds. Another false dichotomy Steve. There is plenty of room for personal taste, huzzah for personal taste, so long as it is within the standard !!! Huzzah I say !! (I don't think we use "huzzah" enough these days) so once more, HUZZAH for personal taste, HUZZAH for the dedicated breeder who works to improve what is short of the standard and will meet their CRITICAL SUBJECTIVE AESTHETIC ! HUZZAH to the breeder who says "I don't care what everyone else is showing, my dogs are BETTER and I will show them" HUZZAH to the breeder who seeks out what they need with out regard to nationality, personality, kennel name !! HUZZAH !! HUZZAH !!
NO it is not breeding by committee (thank gawd) it is PERSONAL it is SUBJECTIVE, and without those PERSONAL TASTES you wouldn't have the great dogs we have and have had in this breed. Personal taste is not coming up with some hair-brained breeding scheme that falls to pieces in one generation, it is working to improve the dogs year after year to satisfy..NOT a committee, NOT a web page, NOT a gad fly, not a judge, not an audience but a PERSONAL SUBJECTIVE AESTHETIC ---HUZZAH!!!!
__________________
http://www.kyniska.com
|
|
Loading...
|
|
fairwinds
~ POWER POSTER ~
Registered: 08/26/10
Posts: 1,443
|
|
Posted 09/10/12
|
Reply with quote
#30
|
|
Quote: Originally Posted by SteveOifer
Personal tastes must be left at the door, otherwise, we become so blinded by the image we subjectively love, we then forget that the breed is not supposed to look like Saints, Danes, or Bloodhounds!
Considering how passionate we feel about what our preferences are, I don't think it will every happen when we leave our personal tastes at the door.
I do think we need to remember that EMs are not Saints or Danes and stay true to the breed. If I wanted my dog to look like a Dane or Saint, I'd have a Dane or Saint.
To throw a wrench in the conversation which probably doesn't belong in this thread, don't forget judges have friends. Friends show under judges that are friends. Maybe the next show this judge will be showing and his friend judging. So, in some cases, not only does the dog that most meets the standard not win, but lose to a dog that isn't even close to the standard. The next thing you know, people will be thinking that this non-standard dog is the next fad and breeding for that.
I don't believe it's a black and white issue. There are many variables involving all of it.
Dawn
|
|
Loading...
|
|
rnmkrmstffs
Registered: 08/01/06
Posts: 258
|
|
Posted 09/10/12
|
Reply with quote
#31
|
|
Steve,
I did not give you permission to use Faith's picture in this little demonstration of yours. But thank you so much for the publicity.
I am attaching a copy of the standard which I have taken the liberty of highlighting several parts of.
Mastiff Breed Standard Working Group General Appearance
The Mastiff is a large, massive, symmetrical dog with a well-knit frame. The impression is one of grandeur and dignity. Dogs are more massive throughout. Bitches should not be faulted for being somewhat smaller in all dimensions while maintaining a proportionally powerful structure. A good evaluation considers positive qualities of type and soundness with equal weight. Size, Proposition, Substance
Size--Dogs, minimum, 30 inches at the shoulder. Bitches, minimum, 27½ inches at the shoulder. Fault--Dogs or bitches below the minimum standard. The farther below standard, the greater the fault. Proportion--Rectangular, the length of the dog from forechest to rump is somewhat longer than the height at the withers.The height of the dog should come from depth of body rather than from length of leg. Substance--Massive, heavy boned, with a powerful muscle structure. Great depth and breadth desirable. Fault--Lack of substance or slab sided.
Head
In general outline giving a massive appearance when viewed from any angle. Breadth greatly desired. Eyes set wide apart, medium in size, never too prominent. Expression alert but kindly. Color of eyes brown, the darker the better, and showing no haw. Light eyes or a predatory expression is undesirable. Ears small in proportion to the skull, V-shaped, rounded at the tips. Leather moderately thin, set widely apart at the highest points on the sides of the skull continuing the outline across the summit. They should lie close to the cheeks when in repose. Ears dark in color, the blacker the better, conforming to the color of the muzzle. Skull broad and somewhat flattened between the ears, forehead slightly curved, showing marked wrinkles which are particularly distinctive when at attention. Brows (superciliary ridges) moderately raised. Muscles of the temples well developed, those of the cheeks extremely powerful. Arch across the skull a flattened curve with a furrow up the center of the forehead. This extends from between the eyes to halfway up the skull. The stop between the eyes well marked but not too abrupt. Muzzle should be half the length of the skull, thus dividing the head into three parts-one for the foreface and two for the skull. In other words, the distance from the tip of the nose to stop is equal to one-half the distance between the stop and the occiput. Circumference of the muzzle (measured midway between the eyes and nose) to that of the head (measured before the ears) is as 3 is to 5. Muzzle short, broad under the eyes and running nearly equal in width to the end of the nose. Truncated, i.e. blunt and cut off square, thus forming a right angle with the upper line of the face. Of great depth from the point of the nose to the underjaw. Underjaw broad to the end and slightly rounded. Muzzle dark in color, the blacker the better. Fault snipiness of the muzzle. Nose broad and always dark in color, the blacker the better, with spread flat nostrils (not pointed or turned up) in profile. Lips diverging at obtuse angles with the septum and sufficiently pendulous so as to show a modified square profile. Canine Teeth healthy and wide apart. Jaws powerful. Scissors bite preferred, but a moderately undershot jaw should not be faulted providing the teeth are not visible when the mouth is closed.
Neck, Topline, Body
Neck powerful, very muscular, slightly arched, and of medium length. The neck gradually increases in circumference as it approaches the shoulder. Neck moderately "dry" (not showing an excess of loose skin). Topline--In profile the topline should be straight, level, and firm, not swaybacked, roached, or dropping off sharply behind the high point of the rump.Chest wide, deep, rounded, and well let down between the forelegs, extending at least to the elbow. Forechest should be deep and well defined with the breastbone extending in front of the foremost point of the shoulders. Ribs well rounded. False ribs deep and well set back. Underline--There should be a reasonable, but not exaggerated, tuck-up. Back muscular, powerful, and straight. When viewed from the rear, there should be a slight rounding over the rump. Loins wide and muscular.
Tail set on moderately high and reaching to the hocks or a little below. Wide at the root, tapering to the end, hanging straight in repose, forming a slight curve, but never over the back when the dog is in motion.
Forequarters
Shoulders moderately sloping, powerful and muscular, with no tendency to looseness. Degree of front angulation to match correct rear angulation. Legs straight, strong and set wide apart, heavy boned. Elbows parallel to body. Pasterns strong and bent only slightly. Feet large, round, and compact with well arched toes. Black nails preferred.
Hindquarters
Hindquarters broad, wide and muscular. Second thighs well developed, leading to a strong hock joint. Stifle joint is moderately angulated matching the front. Rear legs are wide apart and parallel when viewed from the rear. When the portion of the leg below the hock is correctly "set back" and stands perpendicular to the ground, a plumb line dropped from the rearmost point of the hindquarters will pass in front of the foot. This rules out straight hocks, and since stifle angulation varies with hock angulation, it also rules out insufficiently angulated stifles. Fault--Straight stifles. Coat
Outer coat straight, coarse, and of moderately short length. Undercoat dense, short, and close lying. Coat should not be so long as to produce "fringe" on the belly, tail, or hind legs. Fault Long or wavy coat.
Color
Fawn, apricot, or brindle. Brindle should have fawn or apricot as a background color which should be completely covered with very dark stripes. Muzzle, ears, and nose must be dark in color, the blacker the better, with similar color tone around the eye orbits and extending upward between them. A small patch of white on the chest is permitted.
Faults--Excessive white on the chest or white on any other part of the body. Mask, ears, or nose lacking dark pigment.
Gait
The gait denotes power and strength. The rear legs should have drive, while the forelegs should track smoothly with good reach. In motion, the legs move straight forward; as the dog's speed increases from a walk to a trot, the feet move in toward the center line of the body to maintain balance.
Temperament
A combination of grandeur and good nature, courage and docility. Dignity, rather than gaiety, is the Mastiff's correct demeanor. Judges should not condone shyness or viciousness. Conversely, judges should also beware of putting a premium on showiness.
***The above standard was copied verbatim from the AKC website***
__________________
Rebecca Thyssen
http://www.rainmakersmastiffs.com
|
|
Loading...
|
|
SteveOifer
~ TOP SUPREME POWER POSTER~
Registered: 06/01/06
Posts: 23,443
|
|
Posted 09/10/12
|
Reply with quote
#32
|
|
Huzzah, for the time honored tradition of the security of sameness, which you ascribe!
Huzzah, for the false belief in creating flyers and then using them as templates for long term success in breeding practices!
Huzzah, for your promotion of breeders who know better than anyone else as to what type should represent, even though their type may be totally erroneous to standard tenets!
Huzzah, for your twisting of meanings to suit your false premise, just to promote variability.
Huzzah, for countering an opinion with one of your own and then arguing against by labeling it a Fox News Headline!
Huzzah, for the personification of nonsense!
__________________
For the betterment of the breed!
"Above all, a uniform type should be aimed at by breeders and uniformity of type can only exist in a proportionate ratio in the purity and distinctiveness in any breed"!.........M. Moore
"If breeds did not adhere to a specific shape, form, and colour range, or if breeders disregarded this blueprint, the breed would degenerate to the point that it would hardly resemble the breed at all. Selective breeding does not just create breeds- it preserves them as well. Breeding purebred dogs inherently means accepting limitations on your freedom to just breed anything"...Catherine McMillan
" A reinforced consolidation of the American and British standards could be the basis for restoring our breed to the gladiatorial glory of its ancient past, in capability if not in usage".....Norman Howard Carp-Gordon
"I can live with doubt, or not knowing, rather than to have answers that might be wrong"...Richard Feynman
TEST YOUR DOGS!
|
|
Loading...
|
|
erikam
Registered: 01/21/12
Posts: 1,477
|
|
Posted 09/10/12
|
Reply with quote
#33
|
|
See, I knew Huzzah would catch on !!
__________________
http://www.kyniska.com
|
|
Loading...
|
|
SteveOifer
~ TOP SUPREME POWER POSTER~
Registered: 06/01/06
Posts: 23,443
|
|
Posted 09/10/12
|
Reply with quote
#34
|
|
"Subjective tastes, no matter how pleasing to the observer, has no basis in objectification of breed standards."
Quote:
Rubbish. This is not splitting the atom, it is breeding dogs and the standard is primary concerned with aesthetics - it is ALL subjective tastes.
Funny how certain names seem to go BOB by many different judges over other dogs who fall short. One can only assume that the winning dog must contain certain attributes, which go well beyond the subjective aesthetic and are anchored in substance primarily based on the standard.
This is not a beauty pageant, this is a dog show, with some breeds that are viewed as ugly. When they win, it's because they represent an ideal required for that breed.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but the premise must first be delineated by a standard, and those meeting the standard best, are the one's seen as most beautiful for that breed type, even in the eyes of those objective judges, who may feel the greater aesthetic is in an Afghan, yet will award the prize to the Basset..
__________________
For the betterment of the breed!
"Above all, a uniform type should be aimed at by breeders and uniformity of type can only exist in a proportionate ratio in the purity and distinctiveness in any breed"!.........M. Moore
"If breeds did not adhere to a specific shape, form, and colour range, or if breeders disregarded this blueprint, the breed would degenerate to the point that it would hardly resemble the breed at all. Selective breeding does not just create breeds- it preserves them as well. Breeding purebred dogs inherently means accepting limitations on your freedom to just breed anything"...Catherine McMillan
" A reinforced consolidation of the American and British standards could be the basis for restoring our breed to the gladiatorial glory of its ancient past, in capability if not in usage".....Norman Howard Carp-Gordon
"I can live with doubt, or not knowing, rather than to have answers that might be wrong"...Richard Feynman
TEST YOUR DOGS!
|
|
Loading...
|
|
Grant
Registered: 10/03/10
Posts: 849
|
|
Posted 09/13/12
|
Reply with quote
#35
|
|
Quote: Originally Posted by erikam
Look at the dogs on the thread "most favorite mastiffs from the past and why" and tell me we should not be delighted with the different types we have !!!
Because it is not about us, it is about the breed being recognized by everyone that looks at them, and to be honest, when even Mastiff owners have trouble doing that, then there are to many variations, caused by to many ways to interpret the Standard !!
There will always be differences, no matter how well the Standard explains what is called for, but our breed types need to be thinned out, to at least show everyone what a Mastiff is to look like, and stop the questions asking what breed it is !
It's not good enough, to say that any type, that can be interpreted to meet the Standard is ok, when the variations cause people not to even recognize them as the same breed !!
If a Mastiff is meant to be bulky and massive in everyone's mind, then why are there so many none massive or bulky so called Mastiffs getting through to be champions . Some adult champs look like they are six months old and yet to fill out, yet they are fully grown adults, even with a small turnout, these dogs should not be put through, so breeders make more of them !!!
__________________
Grant
|
|
Loading...
|
|
erikam
Registered: 01/21/12
Posts: 1,477
|
|
Posted 09/13/12
|
Reply with quote
#36
|
|
Quote: Because it is not about us, it is about the breed being recognized by everyone that looks at them, and to be honest, when even Mastiff owners have trouble doing that, then there are to many variations, caused by to many ways to interpret the Standard !!
There are crappy mastiffs and unfortunately always will be. Changing the standard will not change that one iota. There are also people who couldn't differentiate btw a bull mastiff and a mastiff if they both bit them in the butt - changing the standard will not change that one iota.
Quote:
There will always be differences, no matter how well the Standard explains what is called for, but our breed types need to be thinned out, to at least show everyone what a Mastiff is to look like, and stop the questions asking what breed it is !
Disagree. If you want to "show everyone what a mastiff is to look like" then explain the standard to them. Too many people want to casually read the standard, look at a couple of pictures and then say "gee that sucks it makes no sense" ...should we change the theory of relativity because oooohhh, it is hard to understand ? Rubbish. Difficult things are worth a LITTLE effort. If people won't make the effort, then their lack of understanding is their problem.
Quote: It's not good enough, to say that any type, that can be interpreted to meet the Standard is ok, when the variations cause people not to even recognize them as the same breed !!
Again with the people who don't understand - EXPLAIN IT TO THEM GRANT !! Geeze, do we need to be like the restaurants that have picture menus because people can't read ? Ok, we DO and I DO think we need a good illustrated standard but more than that we need people to EXPLAIN and WORK WITH and SUPPORT people in their attempts to understand the standard and what a good dog looks like - not waste time saying CHANGE IT CHANGE IT CHANGE IT
Quote: If a Mastiff is meant to be bulky and massive in everyone's mind, then why are there so many none massive or bulky so called Mastiffs getting through to be champions .
Some adult champs look like they are six months old and yet to fill out, yet they are fully grown adults, even with a small turnout, these dogs should not be put through, so breeders make more of them !!!
They didn't change probability and statistics because I didn't understand it. It was explained, and I worked at it, and although I am not fluent and will never be a mathematician, I have a BASIC, FUNCTIONAL understanding of how it works. You are worried about all "those" ignorant people out there who don't understand the mastiff as well as you do, who don't understand the standard as well as you do, who don't know a good dog as well as you do, go teach.
__________________
http://www.kyniska.com
|
|
Loading...
|
|
SteveOifer
~ TOP SUPREME POWER POSTER~
Registered: 06/01/06
Posts: 23,443
|
|
Posted 09/13/12
|
Reply with quote
#37
|
|
Because it is not about us, it is about the breed being recognized by everyone that looks at them, and to be honest, when even Mastiff owners have trouble doing that, then there are to many variations, caused by to many ways to interpret the Standard !!
There are crappy mastiffs and unfortunately always will be. Therefore, change is needed. Changing the standard will not change that one iota. Then why are standards amended? There are also people who couldn't differentiate btw a bull mastiff and a mastiff if they both bit them in the butt - changing the standard will not change that one iota. If one doesn't read a clearly written standard, which delineates those differences, you'd be correct.
Quote:
There will always be differences, no matter how well the Standard explains what is called for, but our breed types need to be thinned out, to at least show everyone what a Mastiff is to look like, and stop the questions asking what breed it is !
Disagree. If you want to "show everyone what a mastiff is to look like" then explain the standard to them. Once again, subjective! Too many people want to casually read the standard, look at a couple of pictures and then say "gee that sucks it makes no sense" ...should we change the theory of relativity because oooohhh, it is hard to understand ? Actually E=Mc2 does not explain the conversion of energy fully. Therefore, the theory is OK, but one needs further written information to get a better understanding. It's why the theory of relativity is split by the special theory of relativity. It's why our standard needs tweaking. Rubbish. Difficult things are worth a LITTLE effort. If people won't make the effort, then their lack of understanding is their problem.
Quote: It's not good enough, to say that any type, that can be interpreted to meet the Standard is ok, when the variations cause people not to even recognize them as the same breed !!
Again with the people who don't understand - EXPLAIN IT TO THEM GRANT !! Geeze, do we need to be like the restaurants that have picture menus because people can't read ? If you want to prepare those recipes you need to know the ingredients! Pictures can't provide that information. Ok, we DO and I DO think we need a good illustrated standard but more than that we need people to EXPLAIN and WORK WITH and SUPPORT people in their attempts to understand the standard and what a good dog looks like - not waste time saying CHANGE IT CHANGE IT CHANGE IT Ask 1000 chefs about their opinion on their favorite spaghetti sauce and you'll get 1000 different tastes. A universal outline is needed, so all Mastiff chefs can be on one page.
Quote: If a Mastiff is meant to be bulky and massive in everyone's mind, then why are there so many none massive or bulky so called Mastiffs getting through to be champions .
Some adult champs look like they are six months old and yet to fill out, yet they are fully grown adults, even with a small turnout, these dogs should not be put through, so breeders make more of them !!!
They didn't change probability and statistics because I didn't understand it. It was explained, and I worked at it, and although I am not fluent and will never be a mathematician, I have a BASIC, FUNCTIONAL understanding of how it works. You are worried about all "those" ignorant people out there who don't understand the mastiff as well as you do, who don't understand the standard as well as you do, who don't know a good dog as well as you do, go teach. Fine, but one first needs a lesson plan. One that is clear and can be easily understood by all who may follow it's teachings!
__________________
For the betterment of the breed!
"Above all, a uniform type should be aimed at by breeders and uniformity of type can only exist in a proportionate ratio in the purity and distinctiveness in any breed"!.........M. Moore
"If breeds did not adhere to a specific shape, form, and colour range, or if breeders disregarded this blueprint, the breed would degenerate to the point that it would hardly resemble the breed at all. Selective breeding does not just create breeds- it preserves them as well. Breeding purebred dogs inherently means accepting limitations on your freedom to just breed anything"...Catherine McMillan
" A reinforced consolidation of the American and British standards could be the basis for restoring our breed to the gladiatorial glory of its ancient past, in capability if not in usage".....Norman Howard Carp-Gordon
"I can live with doubt, or not knowing, rather than to have answers that might be wrong"...Richard Feynman
TEST YOUR DOGS!
|
|
Loading...
|
|
Dozersmom
Registered: 01/03/12
Posts: 369
|
|
Posted 09/13/12
|
Reply with quote
#38
|
|
Only been in the breed since the 70's but I have to say give me the "overdone " Mastiff any day over the Mastiff that looks like a Dane but with a bigger head or a Mastiff that looks like a bullmastiff but taller...
The last 10 months I have been looking and researching Mastiff breeders, and out of the hundreds of them I found the one that was right for me. Hope next year to get a pup from Rainmakers. She is breeding what I like in the looks of a Mastiff.
She is breeding what I have always had in Mastiffs( except for the guy I have now, which is way to tall with not enough chest.).
Personal opinion is what it really comes down to. Everyone looks at the standard in THEIR eyes.
__________________
Sue Havelka
|
|
Loading...
|
|
SteveOifer
~ TOP SUPREME POWER POSTER~
Registered: 06/01/06
Posts: 23,443
|
|
Posted 09/13/12
|
Reply with quote
#39
|
|
"Above all, a uniform type should be aimed at by breeders and uniformity of type can only exist in a proportionate ratio in the purity and distinctiveness in any breed"!.........M. Moore
"If breeds did not adhere to a specific shape, form, and colour range, or if breeders disregarded this blueprint, the breed would degenerate to the point that it would hardly resemble the breed at all. Selective breeding does not just create breeds- it preserves them as well. Breeding purebred dogs inherently means accepting limitations on your freedom to just breed anything"...Catherine McMillan
" A reinforced consolidation of the American and British standards could be the basis for restoring our breed to the gladiatorial glory of its ancient past, in capability if not in usage".....Norman Howard Carp-Gordon
__________________
For the betterment of the breed!
"Above all, a uniform type should be aimed at by breeders and uniformity of type can only exist in a proportionate ratio in the purity and distinctiveness in any breed"!.........M. Moore
"If breeds did not adhere to a specific shape, form, and colour range, or if breeders disregarded this blueprint, the breed would degenerate to the point that it would hardly resemble the breed at all. Selective breeding does not just create breeds- it preserves them as well. Breeding purebred dogs inherently means accepting limitations on your freedom to just breed anything"...Catherine McMillan
" A reinforced consolidation of the American and British standards could be the basis for restoring our breed to the gladiatorial glory of its ancient past, in capability if not in usage".....Norman Howard Carp-Gordon
"I can live with doubt, or not knowing, rather than to have answers that might be wrong"...Richard Feynman
TEST YOUR DOGS!
|
|
Loading...
|
|
Olga
~ POWER POSTER ~
Registered: 05/11/06
Posts: 1,613
|
|
Posted 09/13/12
|
Reply with quote
#40
|
|
Very interesting to reed... but from the breeder point of view... try to get concistent litter of pups.. good luck! What I like about Becki breeding program is a concistency.. I would take little overdone mastiff any day rather then plain one lacking substance..
I been breeding mastiffs almost 20 years ( and Saints before them in Europe). I can see a huge change in mastiff type we see on the ring then and now.. I saw Silvers mastiffs in person, great size, bone, heads, I saw Semper fi mastiffs with lots of size, Groppetti mastiffs, great frames, great bones and heads.. Lots of Iron hill dogs, very correct frames, great movement.. I saved the vision of those dogs and trying to continue to produce same. NOT EASY! Variability is in gens. ACCORDING TO GENETIC SCIENTISTS IN ORDER TO CHANGE GENETICS IN HUMANS WE NEED 40 THOUSAND YEARS, genetically we are not any different then Alexander the Great as it only 2000 years in between.
I have a huge respect for hand full of dedicated breeders who are ( despy all the criticizm) consistently producing massive mastiffs with a huge bones, heads and correct structure, the main attributes of mastiff, that makes them distinct from other breeds. Not an easy task.
Olga
|
|
Loading...
|
|
Dozersmom
Registered: 01/03/12
Posts: 369
|
|
Posted 09/13/12
|
Reply with quote
#41
|
|
Have to agree with Olga....
Years ago we bought a American bulldog, I had decided to get away from Mastiffs as I was getting older and wanted a smaller dog. After 2 years of researching AB we went with the Johnson American Bulldog,,,,,Mr Johnson many years ago wanted to bring more height and weight into the AB. Our guy was over 130 lbs of pure muscle as opposed to the Standard AB,,,,usually weighing in around 80 pounds or so.
I think the breeders that are staying true to what they see the standard as are on the right track.....give me a massive Mastiff any day
__________________
Sue Havelka
|
|
Loading...
|
|
Grant
Registered: 10/03/10
Posts: 849
|
|
Posted 09/13/12
|
Reply with quote
#42
|
|
Quote: Originally Posted by erikamQuote: Because it is not about us, it is about the breed being recognized by everyone that looks at them, and to be honest, when even Mastiff owners have trouble doing that, then there are to many variations, caused by to many ways to interpret the Standard !!
There are crappy mastiffs and unfortunately always will be. Changing the standard will not change that one iota. There are also people who couldn't differentiate btw a bull mastiff and a mastiff if they both bit them in the butt - changing the standard will not change that one iota.
Mastiffs can be bred by anyone with the means to do it, without even looking at the standard, and anyone can show these dogs, if registered, so of course there will be crappy Mastiffs !!
But these crappy dogs should not be getting any further than being able to run around the ring, as there right to try, but get no awards so the owners get the message !! Not given awards just because they were the only dog in class etc !!!
Quote:
There will always be differences, no matter how well the Standard explains what is called for, but our breed types need to be thinned out, to at least show everyone what a Mastiff is to look like, and stop the questions asking what breed it is !
Disagree. If you want to "show everyone what a mastiff is to look like" then explain the standard to them. Too many people want to casually read the standard, look at a couple of pictures and then say "gee that sucks it makes no sense" ...should we change the theory of relativity because oooohhh, it is hard to understand ? Rubbish. Difficult things are worth a LITTLE effort. If people won't make the effort, then their lack of understanding is their problem.
Steve posted two pictures at the start of this thread, if ether of these pictures were part of the standard description, i would abide by this description as to what was called for, and the other was wrong !
I have Labradors, Spaniels, terriers, and Mastiffs and none will be perfect to standard, but everyone will recognize the smaller dogs !!
Quote: It's not good enough, to say that any type, that can be interpreted to meet the Standard is ok, when the variations cause people not to even recognize them as the same breed !!
Again with the people who don't understand - EXPLAIN IT TO THEM GRANT !! Geeze, do we need to be like the restaurants that have picture menus because people can't read ? Ok, we DO and I DO think we need a good illustrated standard but more than that we need people to EXPLAIN and WORK WITH and SUPPORT people in their attempts to understand the standard and what a good dog looks like - not waste time saying CHANGE IT CHANGE IT CHANGE IT
Steve has said many times, that he does not know what a mastiff should look like, and i agree that because of the present variations, who does know, and i know you will say that as long as the dog can be fitted into the standard, it is a Mastiff, but once an illustrated standard is drawn, these misinterpretations will be no more !! Because if the picture showed ether one of the dogs above, then that's the line drawn for all to see !!!
Quote: If a Mastiff is meant to be bulky and massive in everyone's mind, then why are there so many none massive or bulky so called Mastiffs getting through to be champions .
Some adult champs look like they are six months old and yet to fill out, yet they are fully grown adults, even with a small turnout, these dogs should not be put through, so breeders make more of them !!!
They didn't change probability and statistics because I didn't understand it. It was explained, and I worked at it, and although I am not fluent and will never be a mathematician, I have a BASIC, FUNCTIONAL understanding of how it works. You are worried about all "those" ignorant people out there who don't understand the mastiff as well as you do, who don't understand the standard as well as you do, who don't know a good dog as well as you do, go teach.
I do not think in the way you do at all !!! I see my dogs faults !!!
If my dogs were winning shows at this present time, i would not be that impressed or proud, because when i see the variations of dogs in the ring i start to think i could be wrong in my interpretation, and they are right, and so my dogs winning means it is only because these particular judges like my type, and the other types will win next time!!
Labrador show people do not have to think like that, there dogs look the same as the others but have faults that might not be as bad as the others in the ring, so are judged accordingly !
__________________
Grant
|
|
Loading...
|
|
SteveOifer
~ TOP SUPREME POWER POSTER~
Registered: 06/01/06
Posts: 23,443
|
|
Posted 09/13/12
|
Reply with quote
#43
|
|
Quote: I think the breeders that are staying true to what they see the standard as are on the right track.....give me a massive Mastiff any day
Yet the revised UK standard has eliminated the word massive!
__________________
For the betterment of the breed!
"Above all, a uniform type should be aimed at by breeders and uniformity of type can only exist in a proportionate ratio in the purity and distinctiveness in any breed"!.........M. Moore
"If breeds did not adhere to a specific shape, form, and colour range, or if breeders disregarded this blueprint, the breed would degenerate to the point that it would hardly resemble the breed at all. Selective breeding does not just create breeds- it preserves them as well. Breeding purebred dogs inherently means accepting limitations on your freedom to just breed anything"...Catherine McMillan
" A reinforced consolidation of the American and British standards could be the basis for restoring our breed to the gladiatorial glory of its ancient past, in capability if not in usage".....Norman Howard Carp-Gordon
"I can live with doubt, or not knowing, rather than to have answers that might be wrong"...Richard Feynman
TEST YOUR DOGS!
|
|
Loading...
|
|
CChauncey
SUPER POWER POSTER>FORUM SUPPORTER
Registered: 05/02/08
Posts: 4,025
|
|
Posted 09/13/12
|
Reply with quote
#44
|
|
Steve, I can't resist.....remember...."when in Rome.....".......
__________________
Cindy
It is wiser to find out than suppose.
- More Maxims of Mark, Johnson, 1927
|
|
Loading...
|
|
SteveOifer
~ TOP SUPREME POWER POSTER~
Registered: 06/01/06
Posts: 23,443
|
|
Posted 09/13/12
|
Reply with quote
#45
|
|
The question remains....where is Rome?
__________________
For the betterment of the breed!
"Above all, a uniform type should be aimed at by breeders and uniformity of type can only exist in a proportionate ratio in the purity and distinctiveness in any breed"!.........M. Moore
"If breeds did not adhere to a specific shape, form, and colour range, or if breeders disregarded this blueprint, the breed would degenerate to the point that it would hardly resemble the breed at all. Selective breeding does not just create breeds- it preserves them as well. Breeding purebred dogs inherently means accepting limitations on your freedom to just breed anything"...Catherine McMillan
" A reinforced consolidation of the American and British standards could be the basis for restoring our breed to the gladiatorial glory of its ancient past, in capability if not in usage".....Norman Howard Carp-Gordon
"I can live with doubt, or not knowing, rather than to have answers that might be wrong"...Richard Feynman
TEST YOUR DOGS!
|
|
Loading...
|
|
fairwinds
~ POWER POSTER ~
Registered: 08/26/10
Posts: 1,443
|
|
Posted 09/13/12
|
Reply with quote
#46
|
|
Labrador show people do not have to think like that, there dogs look the same as the others but have faults that might not be as bad as the others in the ring, so are judged accordingly !
I've owned Labs for years and years. My Labs are/were all registered purebreds. However, one Lab, Cajun, was tightly muscled and didn't have that big block head. My Lab, Max, was a huge boy, big head, big feet, heavy tail. My Lab, Hawk, is a mixture in between, so even in Labs, there are variations. As long as people have different opinions as to what is the best type meeting what they interpret the standard to be, then there will be different types of dogs/cats/ horses. It's all in how things are interpreted. JMO.
I consider myself to be an expert in Arabian horses. I have what I believe to be the perfect Arabian head in my mind. My friend who is also an expert Arabian horse person, prefers a different type of head. I like short triangular with a large cheek and small muzzle. She prefers a longer more narrow head with a huge jibah. It's all about opinions.
Dawn
|
|
Loading...
|
|
LindaGreesonRice
Board Owner
Registered: 05/06/06
Posts: 7,172
|
|
Posted 09/13/12
|
Reply with quote
#47
|
|
Breeding dogs is like cooking - some recipes are better than others. When you get the right recipe, you still have to keep tweaking it to get it right.
__________________
Linda Greeson Rice
AKC Breeder of Merit
The Mastiff Sweet Spot
http://www.bluequaker.com/Mastiffs.htm
We do not breed often, but we do our best to breed top quality mastiffs
with excellent pedigrees to back them up. All breedings are carefully planned to produce
the very best mastiffs, sound in both body and mind, beautiful and strong,
representing the true mastiff standard.
We fully test our dogs. We believe that a person that "just wants a pet" has a right
to own a beautiful, well bred dog that is sound and healthy
every bit as much as someone wanting a "show dog".
|
|
Loading...
|
|
Dozersmom
Registered: 01/03/12
Posts: 369
|
|
Posted 09/14/12
|
Reply with quote
#48
|
|
100 percent right Linda,,,,but when do WE see it as RIGHT! That is every breeders opinion
__________________
Sue Havelka
|
|
Loading...
|
|
Dozersmom
Registered: 01/03/12
Posts: 369
|
|
Posted 09/14/12
|
Reply with quote
#49
|
|
Steve, never been to Rome,,,,,but I KNOW what I like
__________________
Sue Havelka
|
|
Loading...
|
|
Dozersmom
Registered: 01/03/12
Posts: 369
|
|
Posted 09/14/12
|
Reply with quote
#50
|
|
Tell me Steve,,,,when you hear English Mastiff,,,,,what is the first word that comes to mind? Massive?
__________________
Sue Havelka
|
|
Loading...
|
|
